William Hague was right to differ from Israel’s government over the expansion
of settlements

Few countries are closer allies of Israel than Britain. The two are united not only by their shared efforts to contain Iran’s nuclear programme, but by shared values: Israel, unlike so many states in the Middle East, is a rumbustious parliamentary democracy, where every point of view – from Zionist nationalism to pan-Arab Baathism – finds its noisy place.

So when Britain differs from Israel’s leaders, we should do so only in the spirit of candid friendship. And sadly, William Hague was right to differ from Israel’s government on the vital question of the expansion of settlements on occupied land.

It is true that Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, had good reason to feel affronted by the Palestinian Authority’s successful bid for upgraded status at the United Nations. Instead of helping to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, this piece of political theatre risks creating yet another obstacle to genuine peace talks. But the Israeli leader’s policy of diplomatic and political retaliation could allow Israel’s opponents to portray the country, unfairly, as permanently snarling, defensive and aggrieved.

Mr Netanyahu may have been within his rights to withhold £75 million of tax revenues from the Palestinian Authority, although that decision is bound to weaken Mahmoud Abbas’s cash-strapped administration further by comparison with Hamas. But he was completely wrong to undermine the chances of the “two-state solution” by promising another 3,000 settler homes in the occupied territories – and allowing planning to begin in the highly sensitive area known as “E1”. Any construction on this vital strip of land would sever the West Bank from East Jerusalem, thereby rendering a viable Palestinian state almost impossible to achieve. To have withdrawn Britain’s ambassador from Tel Aviv, as was briefly mooted, would have been a gratuitous piece of grandstanding. But Mr Hague had to make clear how frustrating it can be to be Israel’s friend these days.

In Mr Netanyahu’s defence, there is doubtless an element of electoral posturing to his behaviour. He remains the only Israeli leader to have imposed a settlement freeze – a partial 10-month moratorium in 2010 designed to restart peace talks – and the only head of the Right-wing Likud party to have endorsed the case for a Palestinian state. Having taken those courageous steps, he should follow the logic of his position. A peace settlement would give Israel recognised frontiers and allow the country to divest itself of four million Palestinians, guaranteeing its future as a democracy with a Jewish majority. Mr Netanyahu should be prepared to realise this vision.